Amid continuing controversy over the appointment of Jerome Falk to serve as “special prosecutor” on behalf of the State Bar of California to examine attorney misconduct in connection with the Ninth Circuit matter of In Re Girardi, The Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima — U.S. Circuit Judge and special master in matter of In Re Girardi — to opine on recent developments.

Specifically, Jerome Falk’s alleged failure to disclose that those he was suppose to prosecute (Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese and Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack) were actually his and his firm’s clients. This newly discovered “Smoking Gun” evidence relates to the fact that starting in 2005, the law firm of Howard Rice Candy Falk & Rabkin represented both Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack in a class action advanced by plaintiff Robert Copple.

Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole Food Comany was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Judge Kozinski ordered the appointments of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Wallace Tashima as special master and Rory Little as prosecutor in those special disciplinary proceedings known as the matter of In Re Girardi. (photo: courtesy of Wikipedia)

Early last year, Howard Rice Partner Jerome Falk was accused of wrongdoing as a result of his decision to exonerate a friend of Ronald George – Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese – along with Walter Lack of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack for misconduct the two committed while litigating a case against Dole Food Company before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

During the Ninth Circuit proceedings, and after the case against Dole was dismissed, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order to show cause why attorneys Walter Lack, Paul Triana, and Sean Topp of Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack, as well as Thomas Girardi and Howard Miller of Girardi & Keese, should not be disbarred or suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit.

Subsequently, in late 2010, a Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Justices William Fletcher , Marsha Berzon, and Randy Smith found that Lack and Girardi had committed grave misconduct which included “the persistent use of known falsehoods,” and that the “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation.

Despite the Ninth Circuit’s determination, in his capacity as special prosecutor, and after reviewing the Ninth Circuit file, Howard Rice partner Jerome Falk chose to not file any disciplinary accusations against Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack, stating that he believed Lack’s misconduct was not intentional.

Mr Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese. Per findings by the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Subsequnet to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here. (Image: courtesy photo)

Please observe that, rather than contacting Hon. Judge Tashima directly, the query is being delivered publicly, here and now.

What’s more, many of Leahy’s most generous contributors are major supporters of PIPA. In fact, the five groups that have donated most to Leahy from 2007 to 2012 all are lobbying for passage of the legislation. They include Technet ($81,961), a group promoting innovation and technology; Girardi/Keese ($72,000), a large California law firm that specializes in intellectual property litigation; Time Warner ($62,150), the U.S. media giant that owns Warner Bros. movie studio; Walt Disney Co. ($45,150), the Hollywood film maker; and Vivendi ($36,706), an international media conglomerate that produces films and music.

The PROTECT IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA) is a proposed law with the stated goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to “rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods”, especially those registered outside the U.S.[1] The bill was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)[2] and 11 bipartisan co-sponsors. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the bill would cost the federal government $47 million through 2016, to cover enforcement costs and the hiring and training of 22 new special agents and 26 support staff.[3] The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill, but Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) placed a hold on it.[4]

Howard Dickstein, 67, at his Sacramento law office filled with modern art, offers no apologies for the wealth he’s amassed from representing California Indian tribes, saying tribal members “know what I stand for and know what my fees are. … I am what I am. I am my own person. Some people like it and some people don’t.”

The Leslie Brodie Report hereby asks Metropolitan News-Enterprise’s Roger Grace to opine on a similar story we have previously published concerning then chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George.

If all Ronald George wanted was to have some “bacon-egg-and-cheese sandwiches wrapped in paper pockets” in the company of “bustier-clad women”; couldn’t he achieve the same by going to the nearest McDonald’s and order two Egg McMuffin “for here”? There at least, he wouldn’t need to hide behind a mask, and the only clown named Ronald will be Ronald McDonald.(image:courtesy photos)

Ronald George at the bondage club party. Also present was the dancer Monique Jenkinson with her drag queen alter ego,Fauxnique; along with a potpourri of BYPS (beautiful young people) and “guests in all manner of costumed finery, wearing mysterious masks to hide their identities.”

The Public at Large Hereby Being Asked to Forward to TLR Any Non-Privileged Evidence Establishing, if any, Attorney-Client Relationship Between Thomas Girardi and The Yucaipa Companies of West-Hollywood, California and/or with Ron Burkle

Following on the heels of a $3.2 million jury verdict for professional malpractice against Girardi & Keese, a declaration of mistrial, as well as absurd remarks by Tom Girardi (“This is the most stupid case in the history of America”), prominent trial lawyer Terance Mix minced no words in accusing Girardi & Keese of profesional negligence, and for failing to accept responsibility for the catastrophic consequences befalling Girardi & Keese’s former client, Richard Salerno.

As a service to the community, TLR shall publish Terance Mix’s comment, below:

“Tom Girardi’s comment reflects not only his ignorance about the actual facts of a case that sat in his office largely ignored for over two years, but from a lawyer unwilling to own up to the failings of his firm and accept responsibility for the catastrophic consequences befalling his client when Girardi & Keese bailed on the case only 42 days before trial.

Mr Terance Mix of Santa Barbara, California. Mix is the former president of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association and spent 12 years on the Board of Governors of California Trial Lawyers Association. He is a legal author and lecturer on trial techniques and strategies, including the trial of drug product cases, which was his specialty for over 30 years. (image: courtesy photo)

What Mr. Girardi fails to acknowledge in his rant about the “most stupid case in the history of America” is that the only independent and impartial witness to the impact between Richard Salerno’s motorcycle and the Volvo, being driven next to one another in the same direction, testified that as he passed the two vehicles, while traveling in the opposite direction, Mr. Salerno appeared to be “talking” to the Volvo driver as he passed them, and never saw Salerno remove his hands from the handlebars at any time before the impact.

This evidence is totally contradictory to Mr. Girardi’s assertion that Mr. Salerno was in a “rage” and “beating on the car with his fists and shouting expletives,” as stated in the Metro News article. Indeed, the evidence produced during the trial overwhelmingly demonstrated that the Volvo driver swerved into the motorcycle, as a means of intimidation, knocking Mr. Salerno to the ground and then driving over him with the left rear tire of the car.

Mr Tom Girardi of Los Angeles-based Girardi & Keese. Per findings adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit, Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi have resorted to employing “the persistent use of known falsehoods” and “false representations” were made “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly” during years of litigation. Subsequnet to those findings, the State Bar of California appointed Howard Rice’s Jerome Falk to serve as special prosecutor against Girardi, Lack, and their respective firms. None mentioned that Girardi and Lack are actually clients of Jerome Falk and Howard Rice. See story here. For additional allegations of misconduct leveled against Girardi, please see here, and here , and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. For the latest on Walter Lack, please see here.

What Mr. Girardi also failed to mention, as was likewise brought out during the trial, was that the firm’s real reason for wanting out of the lawsuit was simply because they thought it was a lousy case and Mr. Salerno refused to accept a $20,000 offer for a client with a fractured skull, brain damage, multiple other injuries, and medical expenses in excess of $1,000,000. And that the lawyer in his firm that was assigned to the case contrived an allegation that Mr. Salerno intended to lie at the trial, only after the client refused to sign a substitution of attorney form about 50 days before the scheduled trial of the case.

Perhaps if Mr. Girardi had been present throughout the trial, rather than making just a couple of shorts visits, he might have seen how the underlying case could have been developed by his firm during the two years of representation and successfully resolved with the original defendant, thus avoiding last months trial for professional negligence.”

:ZNT ZNT Zenith National Insurance CorpZNT Zinc TransporterZNT Zeitschrift für Neues Testament (German)ZNT Zentrum Neue Technologien (German)ZNT Journal Library for Natural Sciences and Technology …..Click the link for more information.) announced today that Alan Rothenberg of Los Angeles has been elected to its Board of Directors, increasing its Board of Directors to nine members.

Mr. Rothenberg is a lawyer, mediator, former President of the State Bar of California and former Chairman of the 1994 World Cup of Soccer.

Zenith is a property-casualty insurance organization with headquarters in Woodland Hills, California. Through its insurance subsidiaries, Zenith provides workers’ compensationworkers’ compensation, payment by employers for some part of the cost of injuries, or in some cases of occupational diseases, received by employees in the course of their work. insurance nationally and reinsuranceThe contract made between an insurance company and a third party to protect the insurance company from losses. The contract provides for the third party to pay for the loss sustained by the insurance company when the company makes a payment on the original contract.. In addition, it is engaged in home building in Las Vegas through a subsidiary, Perma-Bilt.

CHICAGO — The Kellogg Co., General Mills, Inc., Kraft Foods Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc. filed suit Dec. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against several egg producers and egg cooperatives claiming alleged conspiracy to control supply and prices of eggs.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants “unlawfully agreed to and did engage in a conspiracy to control supply and artificially maintain and increase the price of eggs” starting in at least 1999 and continuing through at least 2008.

At the tenth status conference on October 28, 2004, the Court reserved ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment — Abnormally Dangerous Activity, filed September 9, 2004 (Ct.Rec.1564). Argument was presented by Peter Nordberg for the Plaintiffs and William (Randy) Squires for the Defendants.1

The Court has reviewed the file, all materials submitted on the Motion, considered the oral arguments of counsel, and is fully informed. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is granted.

I. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiffs’ Motion requires the Court to determine whether the chemical separation that occurred in the Hanford plutonium production process is an abnormally dangerous activity. The chemical separation created radioactive I-131 that was released into the air by Defendants

Proposition 8 contributions

Note: This database was updated 2/4/2009 with new records. These include itemized contributions donated between 10/19/2008 and 12/31/2008 as reported to the California Secretary of State.

Search the database below to see who has contributed money to the campaigns supporting and opposing California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage.

To perform a narrow search, enter a person’s name below and click the “Search” button. For a broader search, select from one or more of the drop-down menus to see a list of contributors by state, city and ZIP code.

(Source: Richard Dalton, a computer-assisted reporting specialist, compiled this analysis of Prop. 8 campaign contributions for the Associated Press. The analysis is based on campaign finance reports submitted to the Calif. Secretary of State’s Office since 2007 and contains data current as of Dec 31, 2008.)

Click on “Details” to see more about contributors, including employer and occupation.

GIRADI OFFENDS: Greene and his orchestra and chorus also performed on the night of Dec. 6 at the Biltmore Hotel. The entertainment was no doubt first rate, but the concert is not what was being talked about in the days that followed.

The performance was at the 18th annual “Supreme Court Night” staged by the Italian American Lawyers Assn. Putting aside the musical presentation, the event was, according to the numerous accounts I’ve heard, a fiasco.

My wife and I weren’t there. This year’s president has set all meetings outside the usual, comfortable venue, Casa Italiana, east of Chinatown. He has partially subsidized the costs of the meals, and has brought in high-priced performers. The problem is: the Italian American Lawyers Assn. has not really been in existence during 2011. My wife and I have avoided meetings of what has been, this year, the Tom Girardi Club.

Meaningfully absent from the IALA meeting was former U.S. District Judge George Schiavelli who, each year for a good long time, has coordinated the meetings with the Supreme Court and emceed the event. This year, the former IALA president was shunted to the side.

When Malcolm Lucas was chief justice, each member of the court came to the mike and said a few words. Ron George, as chief, preferred to do all the talking, himself, but introduced each colleague present. This year, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was primed to offer remarks and introduce associate justices, but the program dragged on, she had to catch a plane, and she asked Justice Marvin Baxter to fill in for her.

He was not called upon to do so. The Supreme Court was never lent recognition at “Supreme Court Night.”

So much for protocol.

What was to become a topic of conversation at courtrooms and bar meetings was the screening of a video. Girardi, I’m told, announced he wanted to show something shot that day that was 4½ minutes.

What was beamed on the screens was a woman, scantily clad, gyrating. One person who was present says she was wearing “too-short pants and a too-brief top.”

Another person in attendance describes the video as “rock and soft porn.”

Set at a smoke-filled party, the video, if I’m correctly advised, includes a woman partyer pouring liquor on a man’s bare chest and lapping it up.

The video came under discussion last week at a Los Angeles County Bar Assn. section executive committee meeting. A member who was at the screening alluded to Erika Girardi’s skimpy attire and quipped that her husband needs to increase her clothing allowance.

Another member of the committee sought to mimic Erika Girardi by standing, turning her back, and raising one side of her rump with a jolt. The inappropriateness was appalling but brief.

The video Tom Girardi showed was 4½ minutes.

Even Tom Girardi should have known better than to display a raunchy video at a meeting at which members of the state’s highest court were present.

Of course, good judgment would have precluded showing it at any bar meeting.

Or, for that matter, anywhere.

Some members will treasure the past year as the group’s “Camelot,” during which a benefactor treated members to largely subsided meals at swank places and to free concerts. The more discerning will recall this year as one in which the group, formed in 1977, temporarily went out of existence.

Deputy Attorney General Steve Mesi will be sworn in as president on Jan. 28 at the San Antonio Winery, and the Italian American Lawyers Assn. will spring back into being. Normalcy, it is anticipated, will be restored.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendants’ joint motion, docket no. 86, to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, docket no. 69 (the “Consolidated Complaint”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court has reviewed all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on July 29, 2009.

El Paso Corp. has agreed to pay nearly $1.7 billion to settle lawsuits and end investigations by California entities who alleged the Houston company had manipulated the state’s natural gas market and illegally driven up prices during the energy crisis, sources have told The Chronicle.

While substantial, the settlement is still about $2 billion less than the amount California claims it is owed by El Paso.

In a complaint filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, California officials say the state was overcharged $3.7 billion in fraudulently inflated natural gas prices in 2000 and 2001. Under the settlement, California, represented by the state’s Public Utilities Commission,would withdraw that complaint.

An attorney for El Paso — James J. Brosnahan of Morrison & Forrester in San Francisco — referred a telephone call seeking comment to an El Paso spokeswoman. She declined to elaborate beyond statements made by El Paso’s acting chief executive earlier this week.

The FERC was scheduled to hold an evidentiary hearing on the California complaint against El Paso next Wednesday, at which one source said extraordinary evidence would be revealed showing that El Paso conspired with its subsidiaries to shorten the supply of natural gas to California.

FERC issued a ruling on Monday in which it said it would make public all evidence gathered during the complaint process. Because the discovery phase in the litigation is still open, the source said, El Paso is concerned about the material’s getting into the record in the legal proceeding and sought to settle the case.

Within the past month, El Paso lost its last legal chance to avoid trial, as the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss the lawsuits against it.

About a dozen public and private California plaintiffs filed lawsuits against El Paso and other companies alleging their natural gas costs had been driven up by a conspiracy to control the pipeline space that delivers gas to California.

The plaintiffs, represented by Joe Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy of Burlingame, included Dry Creek Corp., the parent company of the Gallo wineries based in Modesto. A Dry Creek subsidiary, Gallo Glass, is a major manufacturer of wine bottles and is one of the largest natural gas consumers in the state.

The plaintiffs also included seven California dairies and several cities and counties in Southern California, which were represented by Tom Girardi ( Gerardi in original) of Girardi & Keese in Los Angeles.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer helped negotiate and settle the case. Lockyer was said to have personally demanded the provision requiring El Paso executives to forfeit their bonuses.

The lawsuits alleged that El Paso gained a stranglehold on the pipelines that provide gas to California.

By conspiring with its subsidiaries and other companies to acquire a dominant market position in pipeline capacity and raising the costs of transportation, it was able to reap windfall profits for transportation charges, its own profits on natural gas and the profits it earned from generating electricity in California, according to the complaint. El Paso controlled nearly half the gas pipeline capacity that serves California.

At a critical point in Sempra Energy’s $23 billion antitrust trial, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office threatened to file a separate lawsuit intended to leverage a settlement that would mean tens of millions of dollars in fees for Lockyer’s longtime political ally and friend Tom Girardi and others on the legal team, lawyers and sources close to the case said.

Girardi, his Los Angeles law firm Girardi & Keese and its employees contributed more than $260,000 to Lockyer’s political campaign between 2001 and 2004 and gave him gifts, including plane trips, sports tickets and $325 in cuff links, according to state documents.

Even as the class-action case against Sempra, which owns the Southern California Gas Co., is being tried in San Diego, Girardi is the key figure in parallel high-stakes mediation talks in which the state stands to gain long-sought concessions that could be worth about $1 billion in Sempra Energy’s energy contract – a settlement that could bring $100 million or more in legal fees to Girardi and other plaintiffs’ attorneys. ……. ……. ……..

Girardi did not return repeated phone calls.

Sempra Energy spokeswoman Jennifer Andrews called the announcement of the lawsuit against the Sempra Energy affiliate, now known as Sempra Commodities, “old news,” adding that the issues in that case already were addressed through a settlement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “The action by the attorney general amounts to no more than commercial blackmail,” Andrews said. “The timing of the action is appalling and irresponsible given the class-action trial under way in San Diego.” Robert E. Cooper, the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher attorney representing Sempra Energy in the class-action trial, said in an interview Monday that there would be no justification for the attorney general to file a lawsuit in San Diego. “Such a lawsuit would be disruptive and designed to influence the jury.” Cooper said outside intervention by Lockyer’s office at this point in the trial would be uncalled for, and that the press attention it would attract would put tremendous public pressure on the jury in a case in which plaintiffs are seeking up to $23 billion in damages. The class-action lawsuit representing most consumers and businesses throughout California alleges a “massive conspiracy” between executives with Sempra Energy and El Paso Natural Gas beginning at a Sept. 15, 1996, meeting in Phoenix to manipulate and limit the supply of natural gas to the state, triggering the energy crisis. El Paso is no longer part of the lawsuit, as part of a broader 2003 settlement.

Pierce O’Donnell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he first heard of the state’s threatened lawsuit in the judge’s chambers, and had no independent knowledge of such an action. He emphasized that “the state of California is not a party” to the class-action suit, and also that jurors are sworn not to read newspapers or watch television during the trial.

Sempra Energy in the regulatory filing with the SEC said it anticipated state action if the settlement negotiations broke down. “Based on statements made in the course of these negotiations, it is likely that, if the negotiations are unsuccessful, additional litigation and legal proceedings will be instituted against Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries by the California Attorney General, regulatory agencies and other parties,” the filing said.

This well-publicized case concerns unintended acceleration of Toyota motor vehicles experienced by consumers throughout the country and worldwide. The complaint alleges that Toyota manufactured and sold tens of millions of cars that used a defective electronic throttle control system. Rather than being safe, these systems resulted in Toyota receiving tens of thousands of complaints from consumers about sudden unintended acceleration that caused property damage, injury and, in some cases, death.

Status On May 13, 2011, the Honorable James V. Selna denied Toyota’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs have standing to allege economic harm over sudden acceleration defects in Toyota cars based on a diminution in value theory. Judge Selna held that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to establish overpayment and/or loss in value of the vehicles. To view a copy of the Court’s May 13, 2011 order, click here.

To learn more about the case and view the most recent Complaint, click here.

Stan Levy, a lawyer with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, sat down with a journalist at the firm’s offices in West Los Angeles on a Monday afternoon earlier this month. At one point during the conversation, Levy threw out a few favorite quotations, one of which concerned the difference between the law and justice.

“ ‘An act of injustice is condemned not because the law is broken,’ ” Levy said, “ ‘but because a person has been hurt.’ ”

Stan Levy, a lawyer with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, sat down with a journalist at the firm’s offices in West Los Angeles on a Monday afternoon earlier this month. At one point during the conversation, Levy threw out a few favorite quotations, one of which concerned the difference between the law and justice.

Richard Rothenberg’s Summary

Prior to joining 1CB in July of 2004, Richard Rothenberg had an extensive background in business operations, finance and law. His business and finance work included jobs in business development with Warner Bros., finance with the Walt Disney Company, operations with Launch Media and as a business consultant with Jersey Films. He worked as a litigator for the law firms of Browne, Woods & George and Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg. Mr. Rothenberg has an MBA degree and a JD degree, both from the University of Southern California and a B.A. from Brown University. He is a graduate of the Harvard School (now Harvard Westlake) and participates in its annual alumni fund-raising drive. He has served as a member of the planning committee for the Justice Ball, an annual fundraiser for Bet Tzedek Legal Services. As a fundraiser for the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (“MJFF”), he has helped raise over $10 million for the “A Sunny Thing Happened On The Way To Cure Parkinson’s” Los Angeles-area fundraisers over the last several years. He has served on the MJFF Patient Council since its inception in March 2009.

Specialties

Richard Rothenberg’s Experience

Managing Director

1st Century Bank

July 2004 – Present(7 years 6 months)

Richie Rothenberg works as Managing Director of 1st Century Bank, a private commercial bank located in Century City, where he works extensively with Senior Management and the Private Banking Team to identify and develop customers. He also works closely with and oversees the relationship management of key customers and participates in the strategic growth, direction and development of the company.

Attorney

Attorney with law firm specializing in all areas of commercial litigation. Extensive research and drafting of legal memoranda; drafting of law and motion documents for multi-million dollar contract dispute; making numerous appearances in the United States Bankruptcy Court and Superior Court of California, for, among other things, ex parte application hearings, lead plaintiff appointment hearings and bankruptcy hearings; and preparing business analyses for numerous civil litigation actions.

Attorney

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

November 2001 – November 2003(2 years 1 month)

Attorney with law firm specializing in class action lawsuits for shareholder and consumer fraud. Extensive drafting of legal memoranda and law and motion documents, including class certification motions, oppositions to motions to dismiss, and settlement documents; taking and defending of depositions – in California, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan – of named individual defendants and key witnesses and lead plaintiffs in securities and consumer class action suits; making numerous court appearances in Federal Court in the Central and Northern Districts of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the United States Bankruptcy Court in Illinois, as well as Superior Court of California, for, among others, discovery hearings, complex designation hearings, bankruptcy hearings and lead plaintiff appointment hearings; representing clients in settlement discussions, negotiations and mediations; and preparing business analyses for numerous civil litigation actions.

Vice President, Content (Live Music)

LAUNCH Media

November 2000 – May 2001(7 months)

Product Manager for Vans Warped Tour live concert business (over 30 bands & 12 extreme sports athletes in 45 markets.) Developed marketing plan, managed P&L, developed operational budget & forecast for business with over $10 Million in revenues. Negotiated deal points with vendors, including a marketing and ticketing partnership with Ticketmaster. Managed team of employees dedicated to Vans Warped Tour business, including finance, legal, sales, press and marketing teams.

Vice President, Business Development

Digital Brandcasting

June 2000 – November 2000(6 months)

Member of transition team to prepare musical artists digital management company (clients including Will Smith and Alanis Morissette , among others) for merger with public and private company prospective partners. Prepared business overview and profile, including financial statements of operations and business valuation. Negotiated terms of sponsorship and programming opportunities for clients. Worked closely with CEO/Founder Ken Hertz

Manager, Business Development

Negotiated business deal points and wrote term sheets for content, community and commerce features of Warner Bros.’ entertainment websites (including content deal with Chuck Jones, community deal with Talk City and development of Warner Bros. Live Concert Series). Worked closely with top management in development and implementation of content partnerships and equity investments.

Senior Financial Analyst, Finance and Planning

Strategic planning, research and analysis of Disney Consumer Products business units, focused on the $350 Million licensing business. Prepared board of director meeting notes for consumer products business division. Prepared economic profit models for DCP’s lines of business.

Business Consultant

Jersey Films

January 1999 – May 1999(5 months)

Wrote business plan for entertainment Internet venture. Developed business strategies and operations timeline for Internet venture and other Jersey Films new media developments. Worked closely with Jersey Films principals Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher. Received offer of full-time employment.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendants’ joint motion, docket no. 86, to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, docket no. 69 (the “Consolidated Complaint”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court has reviewed all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on July 29, 2009.

Replying to a previously published story on The Leslie Brodie Report (reprinted below), Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin’s Edward Deibert stated the article is nothing but a “Pointless Diatribe.”

——————————————————————————————-

There’s a lot going on in California this week in terms of preparation by various parties and law firms for fast approaching adversarial legal proceedings relating to California State Bar Court Judge Patrice McElroy’s malfeasance in office.

Pictured above is Judge McElroy, who is either unwilling or unable to recognize the seriousness of her anti-social behaviour. Her involvement in the “Bribing Pat” saga alerted TLR, McElroy’s integrity is amiss. (Photo: Courtesy of Bar Journal.)

According to the sources, Judge McElroy’s misconduct as it relates to Ronald Gottschalk – Thomas Girardi’s former co-counsel in class-action litigation and current nemesis – will be addressed in a Kastigar evidentiary hearing, as well as separate proceedings before the California Supreme Court.

Also before the California Supreme Court is the case of William G. Wells, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corp who is represented by a Century City firm, which accuses Judge McElroy of misconduct.

Additionally, and pursuant to an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “David” (who also sued Judge McElroy in a civil action) plans to call Judge McElroy to the stand during a special hearing before a federal magistrate to determine whether his due process rights were violated. Finally, in connection with the saga known as “Bribing Pat”, Judge McElroy’s misconduct will be addressed with the California Supreme Court.

Specifically, and as was previously reported here, Mr. Ronald Gottschalk and Girardi & Keese’s Thomas Girardi were co-counsel representing plaintiffs in various actions. Once a dispute erupted between Gottschalk and Girardi, the State Bar of California came knocking on Gottschalk’s door.

The State Bar of California, realizing that the evidence against Gottschalk is weak and not credible at the extreme, obtained a default judgment against Gottschalk during a time period which the State Bar knew Mr. Gottschalk was unavailable. Participating in the scheme against Gottschalk were Mr. Paul O’Brien from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel and Judge Patrice McElroy.

In another instance, during a hearing presided over by Judge McElroy, she disclosed that Peter G. Keane — who was then Dean of Golden Gate University School of Law and was representing an adverse witness (Ms. Sara E. Raymond) — had been her supervisor when she was previously employed as an assistant Public Defender.

However, Judge McElroy failed to disclose that at or about the time the hearing in question was taking place, she accepted as a gift from Mr. Keane an overseas trip.

Even more troubling is the fact that at or about the time the trip took place, Golden Gate University and the student in question were in the midst of litigating a civil case the student had filed in San Francisco Superior Court.

In yet another instance, McElroy’s penchant for destroying the official records of her own courtroom also manifested itself during the proceedings against Respondent Khanna.

Feeling victimized, Mr. Khanna advanced an action against McElroy in federal court. Below is part of an order authored by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen. The order alluded to the alleged destruction of the court official record.

In yet another instance of McElroy’s misconduct is the case of William G. Wells. In addition to McElroy’s complete disregard to a specific and detailed order issued by Judge JoAnn Remke– the presiding judge of the court.

McElroy’s was accused of being biased and hostile. Below is an excerpt of pleadings prepared by attorneys from the firm of Christa & Jackson which represents Mr. Wells

“The coming weeks are a crucial time for completion of the work,” said a source from California. “We will continue to expose the massive corruption which infected the State Bar.”

In your letter dated December 7, 2011, you attempt again to defraud and mislead in your attempt to avoid responsibility for your repugnant and deceitful actions taken in connection with your actions as a special prosecutor on behalf of the State Bar of California against two of your and your firm’s clients — Girardi & Keese and Engstrom Lipscomb & Lack (and by operation of law, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack), as part of a scheme to exploit your authority for financial gain.

By analogy, rather than acknowledging that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you seek to bamboozle the unwary by stating that it wasn’t actually your hand in the cookie jar but, rather, only your fingers, and in any event it wasn’t a jar but, rather, a plastic container which you contend doesn’t qualify as a jar. Therefore, you devote an entire paragraph proclaiming, “Your allegations are false.” You conclude by placing me on “notice” that my allegations are “false.”

The contents of your communication are unethical in the extreme, as well as entirely frivolous factually, legally, and by operation of law, to wit:

You claim, “In fact, I wasn’t aware of it” (referring to the fact that you and your firm had represented Girardi & Keese and ELL). While you acknowledge your firm (Howard Rice) did represent Girardi & Keese and ELL from 2006 to 2008 , you assert that you were not aware of this representation. Simply put, your assertion is false; it is simply implausible that for two entire years you were unaware that your firm represented such celebrity/famous/notorious attorneys such as Thomas Girardi, Walter Lack, and Pierce O’Donnell.

This is particularly true since you are a member of Howard Rice’s “attorney liability” group, which consists of between 7-9 attorneys (including your colleagues Sean SeLegue, Pamela Phillips, and Steve Mayer), and the subject matter of the litigation was a suit advanced against Girardi & Keese, ELL, and O’Donnell for legal malpractice in connection with alleged attorney misconduct in the litigation involving El Paso Natural Gas/Sempra Energy, a series of cases which received significant publicity.

I am also hard-pressed to believe that you were unaware of the estimated $250,000 retainer Girardi & Keese and ELL paid to your firm (money which paid your and your colleagues’ salaries), and that no one ever discussed this matter with you for purposes of addressing legal strategy or legal issues in person or during meetings.

Most importantly, in your letter to Robert Baker you acknowledge that you had interviewed Walter Lack. Again, you ask me to believe that Walter Lack did not mention the fact that Howard Rice represented him and his firm only one year prior to your meeting.

The fact that Walter Lack did not speak up during the interview with you is just too convenient, and is further circumstantial evidence that you and he both knew of the prior representation, and chose to nevertheless further continue with the conspiracy to obstruct justice for financial gain, to the detriment of the public and the proper administration of justice.

Mr. Jerome Falk of Howard Rice, an appellate specialist with a mercurial personality. In 2008, during an interview with a legal publication, Mr. Falk stated while describing some opposing counsel, “I would do anything to squash them. So those cases don’t settle. You just want to rip their throats out.” After visiting Vietnam, Mr. Falk joined East meets West, an organization dedicated to improving the lives of children in Vietnam. (Photo:courtesy of Vietnam, East meets West)

Your claim that Ethan Schulman took the file with him when he left Howard Rice is also suspect, as I am confident that records of transactions were and remain on Howard Rice’s computer system, including the computerized conflict check system.

Moreover, the fact that Mr. Schulman has left the firm is immaterial. Courts have held that even where the attorneys in a firm who had been primarily responsible for the representation of a client had left the law firm, there was a rebuttable presumption that they had shared client confidences with lawyers remaining with the law firm. See generally Elan Transdermal Ltd. v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems (N.D. Cal. 1992) 809 F.Supp. 1383.

Similarly, your alleged present recollection is immaterial. See generally Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 70, 79), particularly given the rule that creates a presumption that lawyers in the same firm will confer on their cases and exchange confidences.

Even if I were to accept that you and your firm did not represent Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, and only represented the firms of Girardi & Keese and ELL (which I do not), your absurd argument still fails.

The findings of grave misconduct by the Ninth Circuit in the matter of In Re Girardi, as well as the sanctions imposed, were directed not just at Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi , but also at their law firms — your and your firm’s clients, Girardi & Keese and ELL. In fact, both Girardi & Keese and ELL were considered to have been “respondents” and were represented by counsel Robert Baker, Diane Karpman, and your MGA and Gennetech confederate — Thomas Nolan of Skadden Arps.

Since you concede that Girardi & Keese and ELL were clients of your firm, and the Ninth Circuit made findings against Girardi & Keese and ELL, it was improper for you to accept the appointment at issue. This is especially true given fiduciary duties you owe Girardi & Keese and ELL — including the duties of loyalty and confidentiality — as well as the requirement that you obtain a waiver from a client in instances in which you may take a position adverse to them.

This last prong is a bit unusual when applied to the present facts, as it differs from the usual scenario wherein an attorney has a financial incentive to be adverse to a former client. Here, and as the facts clearly provide, you had a financial incentive to not prosecute, as well as an additional incentive to not prosecute since such would have exposed you to professional discipline.

Lastly, even though plaintiff Robert Copple only named the firms and not the partners as defendants, Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack are still considered to have been your and Howard Rice’s clients by operation of law. For example If anyone would ask Howard Rice to disclose communications with Girardi & Keese regarding the suit and the representation, Howard Rice would certainly assert the attorney-client privilege.

Likewise, if Howard Rice were asked to disclose communications between itself and Thomas Girardi relating to the litigation, Howard Rice would, again, assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to Thomas Girardi; similarly, both Girardi & Keese and Thomas Girardi would do the same. As such, it is disingenuous for you to attempt to argue that these individuals were not clients of you and your firm.

Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Categories

This story is late in publishing because the AOC (ahem, the judicial council) spent months drawing out our requests for information on a simple inquiry they should have been able to deliver on the same day it was received because what scant information they did provide was readily available to them. But they dragged out […]

More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval. What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track […]

Welcome to 2017! Yeah, we know, a bit of time has passed since we’ve been hyperactive here. We’ve been a bit busy frying other fish. If you consider yourself a progressive, you’ve already read and possibly even recognized our work elsewhere. We will be continuing those projects and check in here as not to neglect […]

Thanks to the sheer incompetence of Judicial Council staff leadership, we’re going to be spending the next ten years nipping at their heels. Last week, the San Francisco trial court ruled that the Jacobs entities maintained their contractors license and that the 22.7 million that the Judicial Council should have been able to recover is […]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows […]